The administration of US President Donald Trump has for the first time convened the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, a little-used legal mechanism created nearly three decades ago to facilitate the removal of alleged terrorists from the United States. The first case before the court involves Nazira Haji Zada, a 47-year-old Afghan woman and permanent legal resident of Fort Worth, Texas, who has not been criminally charged.
The Justice Department is seeking Haji Zada’s removal from the US over allegations connected to a suspected 2024 election-day shooting plot involving her two sons. The case has drawn criticism from her defence lawyer, who argues that the administration is attempting to bypass ordinary due process protections in pursuit of its broader deportation efforts.
What Is the Alien Terrorist Removal Court?
The Alien Terrorist Removal Court was established by Congress in 1996, but Thursday’s proceedings marked the first time it has been used since its creation. Its legality has become a major point of debate as the Trump administration seeks to use the mechanism in an immigration removal case involving alleged terrorism-related activity.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche defended the court’s use, saying Congress had created it specifically to remove alleged foreign terrorists from the United States.
“Congress created the Alien Terrorist Removal Court three decades ago to remove from the United States alien terrorists who never should have been here in the first place.”
Five judges from across the United States serve on the court. They were appointed by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.
Who Is Nazira Haji Zada?
Haji Zada is a permanent legal resident who lives in Fort Worth, Texas. The Trump administration alleges that she participated in a suspected shooting plot that was planned for Election Day in 2024.
The alleged plot involved her sons, Tawhedi and Abdullah Haji Zada, who were arrested in October 2024 before any suspected attack took place. Both men later pleaded guilty. Abdullah is serving a 15-year prison sentence, while Tawhedi is awaiting sentencing.
According to the FBI, investigators disrupted the alleged plot when the two men attempted to purchase two rifles and 500 rounds of ammunition from an undercover agent.
Unlike her sons, Nazira Haji Zada has not been criminally charged in connection with the alleged plot.
Government Relies on Classified Information
The Justice Department says there is a “preponderance of the evidence” against Haji Zada. However, government lawyers told the removal court that part of the evidence supporting the case is classified and cannot be publicly disclosed.
In a July 15 memo, the FBI said releasing the underlying information could allow terrorist organisations to avoid prevention or detection measures or expose intelligence sources within the FBI and wider US Intelligence Community.
The government’s position has faced scrutiny during the proceedings. Courts generally have mechanisms for dealing with classified information, and the judge overseeing Haji Zada’s case expressed scepticism about the government’s argument.
What Does the Government Allege?
The Justice Department alleges that Haji Zada encouraged her son’s sympathies toward ISIL, also known as ISIS, which the United States designates as a foreign terrorist organisation.
Authorities also allege that she intended to leave the United States on a one-way ticket to Kabul, Afghanistan, before her sons’ planned attack in 2024.
These allegations are being presented in the immigration proceedings and have not resulted in criminal charges against Haji Zada.
Defence Says Proceedings Violate Due Process
Haji Zada’s lawyer, public defender Matthew Farley, has strongly challenged the administration’s use of the special court. He accused the Trump administration of attempting to advance its mass-deportation campaign by avoiding the legal protections normally available to foreign nationals.
“This entire scheme is in violation of due process and unconstitutional.”
Farley also described the proceeding as an attempt to use an immigration process as a substitute for a criminal case.
Judge Declines Immediate Dismissal
At Thursday’s hearing, Judge Joan Ericksen declined Farley’s request to dismiss the case immediately. The court also acknowledged that it is still developing the infrastructure required to operate the newly activated legal mechanism.
Ericksen clarified an important distinction about the proceedings: Haji Zada is not facing a criminal trial.
“This is not a criminal matter. This is a civil matter that arises under the immigration code.”
The distinction means the case is focused on immigration removal rather than determining criminal guilt. The proceedings nevertheless raise broader questions about how the rarely used Alien Terrorist Removal Court can be applied and what procedural protections will govern cases brought before it.
Why the Case Matters
The proceedings represent the first use of a court that had remained dormant for roughly 30 years. Its activation comes as the Trump administration pursues an aggressive immigration enforcement and deportation agenda.
The Haji Zada case could therefore become an important test of how the Alien Terrorist Removal Court operates, particularly when the government relies on classified information and the person facing removal has not been criminally charged.
For now, the judge has allowed the case to proceed while the court continues to establish its procedures and infrastructure. The proceedings will determine whether the government’s allegations meet the standard required for immigration removal under the special legal mechanism.
Source: Al Jazeera
